Free Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 1 of 11

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO - #084965 (CA) 2 3 4 5 6 7
JONATHAN T. PECK - #12303 (VA) SANYA HILL MAXION - #18731 (WA) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone No. (415) 625-5650 Fax No. (415) 625-5657 E-mail: [email protected]

ARTHUR W. CURLEY, SBN 60902 STEVEN BARRABEE, SBN 110201 MEGHAN E. OLIVERI, SBN 236107 BRADLEY, CURLEY, ASIANO, BARRABEE & GALE, P.C. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 Telephone: (415) 464-8888 Facsimile: (415) 464-8887 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Third Party Defendant RAJU REDDY, D.D.S., M.D., erroneously sued as BAJU REDDY, M.D.

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 NOEL S. COHEN-SBN#219645 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 10 11355 West Olympic Boulevard 11 Telephone: (310) 312-4000
Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 ANDREW L. SATENBERG ­SBN#174840

12 E-mail: [email protected] 13
[email protected] JEFFREY KATZ ­SBN #137246

14 COMMUNITY DENTAL SERVICES, INC. DBA
SMILECARE

15 2 Macarthur Place, Suite 700 16 Telephone: (714) 708-5348

South Coast Metro, CA 92707-7705

Facsimile: (714) 850-3350 17 E-mail: [email protected] Party Plaintiff 18 Attorneys for Defendant and Thirddba SmileCare Community Dental Services, Inc.,

19 20 21
COMMISSION, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) 23 24
v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C-07-4950-CRB FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER DATE: Friday, May 30, 2008 TIME: 8:30 a.m. PLACE: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor

25

COMMUNITY DENTAL SERVICES,

26 INC., dba SMILECARE, 27 28
Defendant.

FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 2 of 11

1

The parties jointly submit this First Amended Case Management Statement and Proposed

2 Order. The parties make the following representations and recommendations: 3 4
I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

5 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized pursuant to §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil 6 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(f)(1) and (3)("Title VII") and 102 of the Civil 7 Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S. C. §1981a. 8 II. 9 10 11
FACTS A. A Brief Description Of The Events Underlying The Action 1. Plaintiff's Description Of The Case

The EEOC filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of

12 the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and 13 retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief, if any, to Nicole Rooney, Bethany Sanders, and similarly 14 situated women, who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff EEOC alleges that 15 Defendant Community Dental Services, Inc., dba Smilecare ("Defendant"), a dental network with 60 16 locations in California, Nevada and Texas, subjected Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders and at least one 17 other woman, Brie Melsan, to unlawful discrimination based on their sex, when it demoted the female 18 employees from their jobs as Oral Surgeon Assistants because of their gender, and to unlawful 19 retaliation after they complained about the unlawful discriminatory conduct of the Chief Oral 20 Surgeon, Raju Reddy, under whom they worked in Northern California. 21
Chronologically, the events began in 2004, when Ms. Sanders, Ms. Rooney and Ms. Melsan

22 began working under Dr. Reddy. The EEOC alleges that, shortly after they began working for Dr. 23 Reddy, he started exhibiting gender bias by treating the women in a boorish, rude, dismissive, 24 offensive and sexually derogatory manner. The EEOC alleges that Dr. Reddy's conduct included, but 25 was not limited to, frequently commenting about the bodies of the Oral Surgery Assistants and of his 26 female patients while they were under anesthesia. The male surgeon assistants, on the other hand, 27 were treated respectfully. 28
2
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 3 of 11

1

The EEOC also alleges that, after the women complained about the conduct of Dr. Reddy to

2 management, rather than investigating the allegations, the company demoted the women from their 3 Oral Surgeon Assistant positions to other less lucrative positions in the company due to their sex and 4 because of their complaints about his disrespectful and demeaning conduct. Ms. Sanders was demoted 5 in March 2005. Ms. Rooney was demoted in April 2005. Ms. Melsan was demoted in September 6 2004. 7
Contrary to Third Party Defendant's assertions, Dr. Reddy's alleged use of sexually derogatory

8 terms is not currently being raised by the EEOC in bad faith or to support a sexual harassment or hostile 9 work environment claim. Rather, it is currently being used as evidence of gender bias in support of its 10 disparate treatment claim based on sex. 11
In addition, Dr. Reddy's use of the sexually derogatory terms is germane to the EEOC's

12 retaliation claim. As discussed above, the EEOC alleges that, after Ms. Sanders, Ms. Roonery and Ms. 13 Melsan complained of Dr. Reddy's comments, which included the sexually derogatory remarks, 14 Defendant retaliated against them. 15 16
2. Defendant's Description Of The Case

Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff Community Dental Services, Inc., dba SmileCare

17 ("SmileCare") denies all allegations of wrongdoing and submits that all employment decisions were 18 appropriate and made for a business related purpose. To the extent the Charging Parties have been 19 damaged as alleged, SmileCare is contractually and equitably entitled to be held harmless and 20 indemnified by Third Party Defendant, Dr. Baju Reddy, an independent contractor for SmileCare. 21
3. Third Party Defendant's Description of the Case

22 23 24 25 26 27
As explained fully in Third Party Defendant RAJU REDDY, D.D.S., M.D.'s, (erroneously sued as BAJU REDDY, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Reddy"), Motion to Dismiss, there are no facts or legal theories alleged in either the EEOC Complaint or SmileCare's Third Party Complaint, which can impose liability on Dr. Reddy. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, the EEOC has alleged for the first time in this CMC 3
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

28 Statement new and very different claims of alleged "hostile work environment" and sexual

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 4 of 11

1 harassment. Such claims were not alleged in the underlying administrative charges, the EEOC 2 Complaint in this action and appear to be sham allegations belatedly raised in a bad faith attempt to 3 impute liability on Dr. Reddy where none otherwise exists. Dr. Reddy disputes these new 4 allegations and requests that the Court exclude them, as they were not plead in either the Complaint 5
or administrative charges and appear to have been included in bad faith.

6 III. LEGAL ISSUES 7 1. Whether Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title 8 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

other women, to unlawful discrimination based on their sex. 2. Whether Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders and other women, to unlawful retaliation after they expressed their opposition to the unlawful discrimination. 3. Whether Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders failed to utilize internal complaint procedures. 4. Whether Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders and other women suffered economic loss because of the acts alleged in the Complaint; 5. Whether Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders and other women suffered emotional distress or pain and suffering as a result of the acts alleged in the Complaint; 6. Whether Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders and other women is entitled to any punitive damages. 7. Whether Dr. Reddy is obligated to contractually or equitably indemnify and/or pay contribution if SmileCare incurs any damages, costs or expenses as a result of any damages or other awards that Plaintiff may recover against SmileCare. 8. Who was the "employer" of Ms. Rooney and Ms. Sanders.

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 5 of 11

1 IV. MOTIONS 2
A. Prior And Pending Motions

3 On May 7, 2008, Third Party Defendant, Raju Reddy, M.D., filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to 4 Dismiss the Third Party Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 5 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The hearing has been noticed for June 20, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. 6
B. Plaintiff's Anticipated Motions

7 Plaintiff does not anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment, but reserves the right to do so if 8 it is later deemed appropriate. 9
C. Defendant's Anticipated Motions

10
SmileCare may file a motion for summary judgment, and reserves the right to do so.

11 12 13 14 V.
D. Third Party Defendant's Anticipated Motions Dr. Reddy may file a motion for summary judgment, and reserves the right to do so. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

15 The EEOC reserves the right to seek amendment of the pleadings should it become necessary to do 16 so. 17 VI. 18
EVIDENCE PRESERVATION A. Plaintiff's Actions

19 Plaintiff has preserved the EEOC's administrative file. 20
B. Defendant's Actions

21
SmileCare has taken necessary steps to preserve all potentially discoverable materials,

22
including those in electronic form.

23
C. Third Party Defendant's Actions

24
Due to his just recent addition to this case, Dr. Reddy is in the process of taking all necessary steps

25
to preserve all potentially discoverable materials, including those in electronic form, within his

26
possession, custody or control.

27 28
5
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 6 of 11

1 VII. 2

DISCLOSURES Plaintiff and Defendant submitted their initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil

3 Procedure 26 on or before April 10, 2008. 4 VIII. DISCOVERY 5
A. Plaintiff's Discovery

6 Plaintiff has not yet begun discovery in this action. Plaintiff intends to pursue the following 7 methods of discovery: interrogatories, document requests, requests for admissions, and depositions. 8
Plaintiff has not yet determined which individuals it will depose. Plaintiff may also seek a Rule 34

9 inspection of premises. 10
B. Defendant's Discovery

11
SmileCare has not yet begun discovery in this action. SmileCare intends to pursue the following

12
methods of discovery: interrogatories, document requests, requests for admissions, and depositions.

13
At this time, SmileCare intends to depose Dr. Reddy, Ms. Rooney, Ms. Melsan and Ms. Sanders.

14
SmileCare reserves the right to take additional depositions if deemed necessary.

15 16 17
C. Third Party Defendant's Discovery

Due to his just recent addition to this case, Dr. Reddy has not yet begun discovery in this

18 action. Dr. Reddy intends to pursue all the following methods of discovery: interrogatories, 19 document requests, requests for admission and depositions. At this time, Dr. Reddy intends to 20 depose Ms. Rooney, Ms. Sanders, Ms. Melson, Ms. Lauren Gurnicki and others to be determined 21 after the allegations against Dr. Reddy in this case are properly clarified. 22 IX. 23 24
action. CLASS ACTIONS

Although this case does involve more than one claimant, this case is not a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class

25 26 27 28
6
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

X.

RELATED CASES

There are no related cases.

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 7 of 11

1 XI. 2

RELIEF A. Plaintiff's Position

3 Plaintiff will seek the full panoply of damages available under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 4 of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, including but not limited to back wages, 5 compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and any other affirmative relief necessary to 6 eradicate the effects of the alleged unlawful practices. As Smilecare employs more than 900 7 employees companywide, the statutory limit on compensatory and punitive damages is $300,000 8 per victim. 9
B. Defendant's Position

10 SmileCare submits that Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages, let alone an award of punitive 11 damages. As to Plaintiff, SmileCare seeks an Order dismissing the entire Complaint and awarding 12 SmileCare its attorneys' fees and costs. To the extent the Charging Parties have been damaged as 13 alleged, SmileCare is entitled to be held harmless and indemnified by Third Party Defendant. 14
C. Third Party Defendant's Position

15
As explained fully in Third Party Defendant RAJU REDDY, D.D.S., M.D.'s, (erroneously

16
sued as BAJU REDDY, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Reddy"), Motion to Dismiss, there are no facts or

17
legal theories alleged in either the EEOC Complaint or SmileCare's Third Party Complaint, which

18
can impose liability on Dr. Reddy and therefore neither Plaintiff nor Third Party Plaintiff SmileCare

19
are entitled to any relief from Dr. Reddy.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
In response to the Motion to Dismiss, the EEOC has alleged for the first time in this CMC Statement new and very different claims of alleged "hostile work environment" and sexual harassment. Such claims were not alleged in the underlying administrative charges or the EEOC Complaint in this action and appear to be sham allegations belatedly raised in a bad faith attempt to impute liability on Dr. Reddy where none otherwise exists. Dr. Reddy disputes these new allegations and requests that the Court exclude them, as they were not plead in either the Complaint or administrative charges and appear to have been included in bad faith. Therefore neither Plaintiff nor Third Party Plaintiff SmileCare are entitled to any relief from Dr. Reddy under these new 7
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 8 of 11

1 improper allegations either. 2 XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 3 The Plaintiff EEOC and Defendant Smilecare agreed to participate in the Court's Mediation 4 Program.. The Mediator currently assigned to the case is John F. Barg. On April 29, 2008, Mr. 5 Barg deferred the initial pre-mediation conference call until Dr. Reddy had a chance to enter an 6 appearance and all counsel has had sufficient time to review pertinent case documents and evaluate 7 the case. 8
Dr. Reddy will agree to participate in Mediation but requests a sixty (60) day extension until

9
September 2008 to complete mediation due to the fact that (1) Dr. Reddy has just been brought into

10
the case, (2) there is a need for clarification of the new improper allegations and (3) Dr. Reddy

11
needs to investigate and obtain discovery regarding all allegations against him, including the new

12
improper allegations.

13 14 15 16 17
XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES SmileCare has declined to consent to the assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge. The EEOC is willing to consent to the assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge.

18 XIII. OTHER REFERENCES 19 Not applicable at this time. 20 XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES 21 At this time, there are no dispositive or partially dispositive issues appropriate for decision by 22 motion or by agreement. 23
XVI. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE

24
The parties do not believe that this is the type of case that can be handled on an expedited basis

25
with streamlined procedures.

26 27 28
XVII. SCHEDULING The parties agree to the following proposed schedule: 8
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 9 of 11

1

(a)

Non-Expert Discovery to be completed by March 9, 2009. Dispositive Motions to be heard by May 13, 2009. Expert Discovery to be completed by March 13, 2009. Pretrial Conference to be conducted on June 30, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. Trial requested for July 13, 2009.

2 (b) 3
(c)

4 5
(d)

6 (e)

7 XVIII. TRIAL 8 Plaintiff estimates a 7-10 day trial. SmileCare estimates a 5-7 day trial. Based on the uncertain and 9 improper nature of the new allegations, Dr. Reddy cannot yet determine now long trial, if any, 10 would last. 11
XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A. Plaintiff's Disclosure To date, Plaintiff is not aware of any non-party entities or persons that (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. Plaintiff EEOC reserves the right to supplement this disclosure should additional facts become known to it during the discovery process. B. Defendant's Disclosure

20 To date, SmileCare is not aware of any non-party entities or persons that (i) have a financial interest 21 in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) have a non-financial 22 interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of 23 this proceeding. SmileCare reserves the right to supplement this disclosure should additional facts 24 become known to it during the discovery process. 25
C. Third Party Defendant's Disclosure

26 To date, Dr. Reddy is not aware of any non-party entities or persons that (i) have a financial interest 27 in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) have a non-financial 28 interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of 9
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 10 of 11

1 this proceeding. Dr. Reddy reserves the right to supplement this disclosure should additional facts 2 become known to it during the discovery process. 3 XX. OTHER MATTERS 4 The parties are not aware of any other matters at this time conducive to the just, speedy, and 5 inexpensive resolution of this matter. 6 7 8 9 Dated: 10 11 12 13 14 15 Dated: 16 17 18 19 20 Dated: __May 20, 2008_____________ 21 22 23 24 25
The Court finds that the parties were represented by lead trial counsel responsible for trial of _______/s/_______________________ ARTHUR W. CURLEY STEVEN BARRABEE MEGHAN E. OLIVERI BRADLEY, CURLEY , ASIANO, BARRABEE & GALE, P.C. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 200 Larkspur, CA 94930 May 20, 2008 _________/s/__________________________ ANDREW L. SATENBERG NOEL S. COHEN MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 Tel. No. (310) 312-4000 May 20, 2008 /s/ ______________________ SANYA HILL MAXION Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel. No. (415) 625-5650

26 this matter and were given an opportunity to be heard as to all matters encompassed by this Case 27 Management Statement and Proposed Order filed prior to this conference. The court adopts this 28 statement as modified and enters this Order pursuant to Civ. LR 16-10(b).
10
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-04950-CRB

Document 27

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 11 of 11

1

The foregoing joint statement is adopted by this court as the Case Management Order in this

2 action in accordance with Civ. LR 16 and other applicable Local Rules, and shall govern all further 3 proceedings in this action. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11
FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER, CASE NO. C-07-4950-CRB

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: _______________________________ CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE